Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS)

1. Abstract

The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS) is an influential psychometric instrument developed by Richard M. Eisler and Jay R. Skidmore (1987) designed to assess psychological strain, cognitive appraisal, and negative emotional reactivity arising from the rigid demands and perceived failure to meet traditional cultural standards of masculinity. Grounded in the cognitive-behavioral conceptualization of stress (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and Joseph Pleck’s gender role strain paradigm (1981, 1995), the instrument moves beyond conceptualizing masculinity as an unvarying personality trait (such as instrumental or agentic orientation) to evaluating the specific contextual situations that men appraise as threatening to their masculine identity.

The scale contains 40 self-report items evaluated across a 6-point Likert-type appraisal metric ranging from 1 (Not Stressful) to 6 (Extremely Stressful). Empirical factor analytic investigations consistently confirm a five-factor dimensional structure comprising: (1) Physical Inadequacy, (2) Emotional Inexpressiveness, (3) Subordination to Women, (4) Intellectual Inferiority, and (5) Performance Failures. The MGRS exhibits robust psychometric stability, characterized by high overall internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha typically exceeding α = .92 for the full instrument, and ranging from α = .76 to .86 across individual subscales) and remarkable two-week test-retest reliability (r = .93). Construct, convergent, and predictive validities have been extensively substantiated across clinical psychology, behavioral medicine, and social psychology. Specifically, elevated MGRS scores consistently predict heightened cardiovascular reactivity (systolic and diastolic blood pressure elevations under laboratory stressors), state and trait anger, hazardous health-risk behaviors (e.g., alcohol abuse, avoidance of healthcare), interpersonal difficulties, and intimate partner conflict.

2. Keywords

Masculine Gender Role Stress, MGRS, Gender Role Strain Paradigm, Cognitive Appraisal, Hypermasculinity, Emotional Inexpressiveness, Subordination to Women, Cardiovascular Reactivity, Behavioral Medicine, Psychometrics

3. Authors

The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale was conceptualized and developed by:

• Richard M. Eisler, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Clinical Psychology at the Department of Psychology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), Blacksburg, Virginia, USA. Dr. Eisler was a pioneering researcher in clinical psychology whose empirical work centered on masculine socialization, anger, stress physiology, and gender-related determinants of coronary heart disease.
• Jay R. Skidmore, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology and Director of Clinical Training at the School of Psychology, Family, and Community, Seattle Pacific University, Seattle, Washington, USA. Dr. Skidmore’s research focuses on health psychology, psychometrics, stress coping mechanisms, and behavioral medicine.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale is to measure the degree of stress appraised by men in situations associated with culturally prescribed masculine norms and the consequences of deviating from these internalized mandates. Historically, psychological research on gender assessed masculinity and femininity through bidirectional trait measures, such as the Bem Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI) or the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ). While these instruments captured self-attributed instrumental and expressive traits, they failed to account for the dynamic, transactional, and dysfunctional burden imposed by prescriptive gender roles.

The theoretical rationale of the MGRS posits that men are socialized through stringent cultural expectations mandating emotional stoicism, invulnerability, professional dominance, physical superiority, and autonomy. When an individual either encounters an environmental challenge to these standards or appraises his internal performance as falling short of these imperatives, cognitive threat appraisal occurs. This appraisal evokes negative affect, psychological distress, and autonomic nervous system arousal. Consequently, the MGRS does not measure masculinity itself; rather, it operationalizes cognitive vulnerability to masculine role discrepancy and threat.

In clinical practice, the MGRS serves as a diagnostic and conceptualization instrument for evaluating men presenting with anger dysregulation, clinical depression obscured by externalizing behaviors, non-compliance with medical regimens, psychosomatic complaints, and relational breakdowns. In empirical research, the tool has been used in behavioral medicine to examine gender disparities in cardiovascular disease, identifying gender role stress as an independent contributor to neuroendocrine and hemodynamic hyperreactivity. Furthermore, it is extensively used in social, developmental, and forensic psychology to examine the etiology of intimate partner violence, aggressive driving, risky sexual practices, and barriers to psychological help-seeking among male populations.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct assessed by the MGRS is Masculine Gender Role Stress (MGRS), defined as a cognitive-affective syndrome characterized by the appraisal of specific situations as acutely threatening because they undermine traditional masculine identity, competence, or status. Rather than representing an overarching global pathology, MGRS comprises five distinct yet interrelated behavioral and psychological domains:

1. Physical Inadequacy

This dimension captures the appraisal of vulnerability, physical degeneration, physical defeat, and the inability to maintain physical stamina, bodily dominance, or prowess. Within traditional Western masculine socialization, a man’s body is conceptualized as an instrument of power, defense, and competitive achievement. Items loading on this factor assess perceived stress regarding losing athletic competitions, feeling physically out of condition, appearing unathletic compared to peers, and showing somatic vulnerability (e.g., an inability to hold one’s liquor as well as others).

2. Emotional Inexpressiveness

This subscale evaluates the psychological discomfort and threat appraised when an individual is confronted with situations demanding the expression, disclosure, or acknowledgment of tender, fearful, or vulnerable emotions. Traditional gender norms enforce emotional suppression (“the boy code” or emotional stoicism), categorizing displays of sadness, fear, or profound affection as manifestations of weakness. Items within this factor assess stress experienced when admitting fear, verbalizing hurt, displaying tears before one’s children, communicating love to a partner, or comforting an upset male peer.

3. Subordination to Women

This dimension measures cognitive distress and perceived status loss occurring in interpersonal, occupational, or social contexts where a man is placed in a subordinate, dependent, or less successful position relative to a woman. Because hegemonic masculinity historically mandates male authority, control, and primacy, situations where women occupy positions of superiority or authority directly challenge male dominance. Items assess stress provoked by working under a female superior, being outperformed at work or in recreational games by a woman, being paired with an economically or professionally more accomplished woman, or interacting with a feminist.

4. Intellectual Inferiority

The Intellectual Inferiority subscale measures anxiety, inadequacy, and cognitive threat evoked in settings that highlight limitations in cognitive acumen, decisiveness, or vocational skills. Traditional male role norms emphasize rational problem-solving, cognitive superiority, decisiveness, and professional expertise. Situations reflecting poorly on a man’s intellectual capability—such as working with individuals perceived as brighter or more ambitious, having others comment on one’s indecisiveness, or being forced to ask for directions when lost—are appraised as attacks upon personal competence and autonomy.

5. Performance Failures

This domain captures the distress evoked by perceived failure to meet societal expectations concerning instrumental provision and sexual performance. Western male socialization emphasizes the “breadwinner” role and sexual potency as foundational pillars of manhood. Failure in these domains triggers acute cognitive and emotional crisis. Items in this subscale measure stress related to unemployment, occupational termination, demotion or bypassed promotions, financial inadequacy, needing a spouse to work for economic survival, and sexual difficulties such as erectile dysfunction, premature failure, or perceived inability to satisfy a partner sexually.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual architecture of the MGRS is situated at the intersection of two major psychological paradigms: the Cognitive-Mediational Theory of Stress and Coping formulated by Richard Lazarus and Susan Folkman (1984), and the Gender Role Strain Paradigm (GRSP) articulated by Joseph H. Pleck (1981, 1995).

The Cognitive Appraisal Framework

Lazarus and Folkman posited that psychological stress does not reside solely within external environmental events or physiological responses, but emerges from a dynamic, transactional relationship between the individual and the environment. Central to this process is primary cognitive appraisal, in which an individual evaluates an encounter as benign-positive, irrelevant, or stressful (representing harm/loss, threat, or challenge). Situations appraised as “threats” are those anticipated to produce negative consequences for one’s core goals, beliefs, or identity.

Eisler and Skidmore (1987) applied this cognitive-transactional framework to gender socialization. They argued that men develop cognitive schemata structured around rigid societal definitions of masculinity. Consequently, events that objectively appear neutral, benign, or mildly challenging to someone without rigid masculine schemata are systematically appraised as severe, identity-compromising threats by men whose self-worth is rigidly bound to traditional gender norms. This cognitive appraisal immediately elicits physiological mobilization (sympathetic-adrenal-medullary activation) and secondary maladaptive coping responses, including anger and avoidance.

The Gender Role Strain Paradigm (GRSP)

Pleck (1981) introduced the Gender Role Strain Paradigm as a critical alternative to traditional sex-role identity models. The identity model assumed that optimal psychological adjustment required the strong acquisition of an innate, biological sex-typed identity. In contrast, the GRSP maintains that gender roles are socially constructed, inherently contradictory, and psychologically burdensome. Pleck delineated three primary forms of strain:

• Discrepancy Strain: Distress resulting from the failure to conform to internalized, often unattainable masculine ideals (e.g., physical invulnerability, wealth, sexual mastery).
• Trauma Strain: Psychological distress stemming from the harsh, punitive, and emotionally restrictive socialization processes required to instill masculine behaviors in boys.
• Dysfunction Strain: Psychological and interpersonal damage resulting directly from the successful fulfillment of masculine norms (e.g., emotional detachment, aggression, coronary-prone behavior).

The MGRS operationalizes discrepancy and dysfunction strain by measuring the acute psychological threat evoked when a man’s self-concept is placed in direct discrepancy with internalized societal ideals of masculine functioning. By quantifying the cognitive appraisal of these threats, the MGRS provides empirical evidence showing that strict conformity to prescriptive masculine socialization acts as a persistent stressor rather than a protective psychological asset.

7. Validity

The MGRS has been validated across diverse empirical investigations, demonstrating strong construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity was established in Eisler and Skidmore’s (1987) initial scale development research. Across non-clinical university samples and adult community cohorts, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses systematically verified the presence of the five hypothesized factors: Physical Inadequacy, Emotional Inexpressiveness, Subordination to Women, Intellectual Inferiority, and Performance Failures. Furthermore, men consistently score significantly higher across all subscales than women when administered parallel gender-salient stress measures, confirming the gender-specific construct validity of the instrument.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Extensive correlational studies confirm robust convergent validity between the MGRS and theoretically related psychological constructs. The MGRS demonstrates moderate to high positive correlations with:

• Anger and Hostility: Measured by the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI) and the Buss-Durkee Hostility Inventory (BDHI), indicating that men experiencing masculine gender role stress frequently channel identity threat into externalized hostility (Eisler, Skidmore, & Ward, 1988).
• Trait Anxiety: Correlated significantly with Spielberger’s Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-T), demonstrating underlying negative affectivity linked to performance vigilance.
• Intimate Partner Violence: Research indicates that higher scores, particularly on the Subordination to Women and Performance Failures subscales, correlate positively with verbal aggression, marital hostility, and domestic violence perpetration (Cohn & Zeichner, 2006).

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that MGRS does not merely reflect generalized neuroticism or global psychological distress. When entered into multivariate regression models alongside measures of trait masculinity (e.g., the Instrumental scale of the Personal Attributes Questionnaire), MGRS explains substantial unique variance in psychological distress. Crucially, the MGRS exhibits near-zero or non-significant correlations with the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, confirming that scores are largely free from self-report social desirability bias.

Predictive and Physiological Validity

A notable aspect of MGRS validation involves psychophysiological laboratory paradigms. Eisler, Skidmore, and Ward (1988) exposed high- and low-MGRS men to laboratory stressors varying in gender-role relevance (e.g., competitive tasks involving intellectual or physical comparisons against female competitors). Men classified as high-MGRS displayed significantly elevated physiological reactivity, including marked increases in systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and heart rate (HR) during gender-threat conditions relative to low-MGRS men. These cardiovascular findings provide behavioral medicine evidence that masculine gender role stress is a verifiable psychophysiological phenomenon directly associated with coronary risk.

8. Reliability

The MGRS exhibits strong internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and cross-temporal stability across various demographics and international settings.

Internal Consistency

In the seminal psychometric investigation by Eisler and Skidmore (1987), the total 40-item scale demonstrated high internal consistency, yielding a full-scale Cronbach’s alpha of α = .92. The individual subscales exhibited satisfactory to excellent reliability coefficients:

• Physical Inadequacy: Cronbach’s α = .83
• Emotional Inexpressiveness: Cronbach’s α = .86
• Subordination to Women: Cronbach’s α = .81
• Intellectual Inferiority: Cronbach’s α = .76
• Performance Failures: Cronbach’s α = .82

Subsequent psychometric evaluations across varied cohorts—including adult working men, athletic populations, military personnel, and clinical samples—have replicated these findings, with full-scale Cronbach’s alpha parameters consistently falling between α = .88 and α = .94.

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability was established by Eisler and Skidmore (1987) via a two-week test-retest administration with a non-clinical male cohort. The total scale test-retest correlation coefficient was r = .93 (p < .001), indicating robust temporal stability. Subscale test-retest coefficients ranged from r = .78 to r = .89, demonstrating that while the MGRS captures an appraisal process, this appraisal is anchored in enduring, stable cognitive schemata concerning gender identity.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural composition of the MGRS was derived through empirical exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and later corroborated using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In the original validation study, Eisler and Skidmore (1987) generated an initial pool of potential stress-inducing items derived from theoretical masculine role standards. This pool was administered to 148 undergraduate males. An exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) followed by orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique rotations was conducted. Scree plot inspection alongside eigenvalues-greater-than-one criteria isolated five distinct, conceptually cohesive factors accounting for 48.7% of the total variance.

The final instrument was reduced to 40 items by retaining only items that demonstrated factor loadings of ≥ .40 on their primary factor and minimal cross-loadings (≤ .25) on alternative factors. Each factor retained eight distinct items, creating a balanced 40-item instrument:

• Factor 1: Physical Inadequacy (Items 1, 16, 26, 31, 36, 38, etc.) — items representing somatic vulnerability, loss of athletic prowess, and bodily inferiority.
• Factor 2: Emotional Inexpressiveness (Items 2, 12, 17, 22, 27, 29, 32, 37) — items reflecting vulnerability, affectionate disclosure, and expressing sadness.
• Factor 3: Subordination to Women (Items 3, 7, 9, 13, 18, 19, 23, 28) — items involving loss of professional, economic, or situational dominance to women.
• Factor 4: Intellectual Inferiority (Items 4, 14, 15, 24, 33, 34, etc.) — items evaluating intellectual competence, assertiveness, and vocational ability.
• Factor 5: Performance Failures (Items 5, 6, 8, 10, 20, 25, 30, 40) — items involving vocational breadwinning breakdowns, job loss, and sexual dysfunction.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent psychometric investigations (e.g., Mahalik et al., 2003; Good et al., 1995; Orbell, 2013) have subjected the five-factor model to structural equation modeling. CFA analyses generally report acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .90, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≤ .06, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] ≤ .07), confirming that the five-factor oblique structure accurately represents the multidimensional organization of masculine gender role stress across diverse cultural and national cohorts.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRS)
• Authors: Richard M. Eisler, Ph.D., and Jay R. Skidmore, Ph.D.
• Publication Year: 1987
• Instrument Type: Self-report psychological appraisal questionnaire
• Target Population: Adult and adolescent males (has also been utilized in comparative studies with female cohorts)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted, or online psychological testing software
• Item Count: 40 items distributed equally across 5 subscales (8 items per subscale)
• Response Scale: 6-point Likert-type appraisal scale:
  • 1 = Not Stressful
  • 2 = Minimally Stressful
  • 3 = Somewhat Stressful
  • 4 = Moderately Stressful
  • 5 = Very Stressful
  • 6 = Extremely Stressful
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by summing (or calculating the mean of) the 8 items corresponding to each individual subscale (Physical Inadequacy, Emotional Inexpressiveness, Subordination to Women, Intellectual Inferiority, Performance Failures). Subscale sum totals range from 8 to 48.
  • Total MGRS Score: Calculated by summing all 40 item responses (range: 40 to 240) or averaging across all items (range: 1.0 to 6.0).
  • Directionality: Higher scores reflect greater perceived stress and cognitive vulnerability regarding masculine gender role violations. There are no reverse-coded items.
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale was published in 1987 in the peer-reviewed journal Behavior Modification (Sage Publications). In accordance with standard psychometric convention and academic research protocols, the scale is generally accessible for non-commercial educational, clinical, and scientific research purposes under fair-use principles, provided proper scholarly citation is given.

Commercial deployment, reproduction in for-profit diagnostic assessment systems, or digital distribution within commercial applications may require formal written permission and licensing through Sage Publications or the primary authors. Researchers and practitioners are encouraged to review current publisher copyright guidelines or contact the original authors prior to systematic implementation.

12. References

• Cohn, A. M., & Zeichner, A. (2006). Effects of masculine gender role stress and intimate partner violence history on men’s alcohol-related aggression. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 7(4), 213–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.7.4.213
• Eisler, R. M., & Blalock, J. A. (1991). Masculine gender role stress: Implications for the assessment of men. Clinical Psychology Review, 11(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(91)90136-N
• Eisler, R. M., & Skidmore, J. R. (1987). Masculine gender role stress: Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/01454455870112001
• Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Masculine gender-role stress: Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52(1), 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5201_12
• Good, G. E., Robertson, J. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Stevens, M., & Bartels, K. M. (1995). The Male Role Norms Inventory: Examination of substance abuse and psychological distress. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73(6), 705–711. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1995.tb01824.x
• Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer Publishing Company.
• Mahalik, J. R., Locke, B. D., Ludlow, L. H., Diemer, M. A., Scott, R. P., Gottfried, M., & Freitas, G. (2003). Development of the Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.3
• Orbell, M. M. (2013). Anger management in college students: A latent class analysis (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia). Available online: http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-02012007-160430/unrestricted/FinalThesis.pdf
• Pleck, J. H. (1981). The myth of masculinity. MIT Press.
• Pleck, J. H. (1995). The gender role strain paradigm: An update. In R. F. Levant & W. S. Pollack (Eds.), A new psychology of men (pp. 11–32). Basic Books.

13. Items of the Scale